The explosive proliferation of “wireless” electronic devices is to continue into the future. These ubiquitous items include cellular phones and pagers, so-called contactless “smart cards”, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and the emerging wireless data transmission devices. One common component of all these devices is an antenna. As is commonly considered, an antenna is an apparatus designed to receive, transmit, reflect and/or scatter electromagnetic waves or energy. Antennas come in many different forms depending on the requirements of the device. However, a common characteristic of many antennas is that they comprise a structural combination of conductive and dielectric insulating materials. One simple form of antenna involves formation of conductive traces or patches on a substantially flat surface. These conductive structures are included in many types of antenna designs, including coil, monopole, dipole and microstrip forms. Examples of these simple antenna structures are those incorporated into contactless “smart cards” and RFID tags. These antennas can be formed from a coil or loop of conductive line traces. The coil or loop antenna inductively powers the semiconductor chip and also accomplishes data transfer. The cards are generally restricted to a thickness of about 1 millimeter, which dictates that the conductive traces be substantially two dimensional in structure. This relatively simple geometry permits a number of manufacturing options to be considered. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,896,111 to Houdeau et al. teaches a technique whereby parallel conductor tracks are formed on strips of flexible, non-conductive carrier strips. The tracks were applied using printing technology, although a detailed description of the materials and processes used to form the tracks was not presented. Bending and connecting opposite ends of adjacent traces results in a substantially planar coil antenna. The technique requires stripping of insulation and individually connecting the opposite ends of adjacent traces which is time consuming and increases manufacturing costs.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,569,879 to Gloton, et al. teaches smart card production comprising lamination of a dielectric onto a prepunched metal strip. In one embodiment a portion of the metal strip is used as part of a microstrip antenna. However, the manufacture includes additional second surface metallization and possibly photo-etching which increases complexity and cost. An additional embodiment of the U.S. Pat. No. 5,569,879 patent shows a portion of the metal strip used as an inductor, but it is not clear how such a geometry would be supported prior to lamination to the dielectric strip.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,067,056 to Lake teaches methods of forming conductive lines and substantially planar antennas by selectively overcoating a first conductive layer with a patterned second conductive layer and etching to remove exposed portions of the first conductive layer. However, etching is wasteful and difficult from an environmental standpoint.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,633 to Mundigl et al. teaches manufacturing a coil antenna for a contactless smart card by winding wire in an automatic wire winding machine through a plurality of turns prior to placement on a carrier body. However, the wire used in a smart card antenna must be relatively thin to prevent unacceptable bulges in the final laminated card. Thus it would appear that the unsupported wire bending taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,633 could be difficult to achieve in volume manufacturing.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,898,215 to Miller et al. describes smart card antennas embedded in a plastic laminate. The antenna is formed by winding an insulated copper wire, a process requiring removal of insulation in the region of contact. Alternate methods of manufacture for the antenna such as plating, etching, conductive ink printing and foil lamination were mentioned, although no specific process was taught in detail.
Other teachings for forming antenna structures on substantially flat surfaces involve printing the antenna design onto the surface using conductive inks or pastes. This method is taught, for example, in European Patent Publication EP 0942441A2 to Sugimura, PCT Publication WO 9816901A1 to Azdasht et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,900,841 to Hirata et al. These techniques suffer from the relatively high costs of the conductive inks and a high resistivity of these materials compared to substantially pure metals. It also may be difficult to make the required electrical contacts to these conductive inks.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,995,052 to Sadler, et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,508,709 to Krenz, et al. illustrate mobile phone antennas comprising conductive structures formed on substantially flat dielectric surfaces. Neither of these disclosures provided a detailed description of methods for forming and adhering the patterned conductive structures onto the dielectric surfaces.
Other techniques for formation of antenna structures on substantially flat surfaces utilize the photoetch technology widely employed for manufacture of printed circuits. These manufacturing techniques are taught in the “printed circuit” antenna structures of U.S. Pat. No. 5,709,832 to Hayes et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,495,260 to Couture, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,206,657 to Downey. Hayes taught production of a printed monopole antenna, while Couture taught a dipole antenna produced using the circuit board techniques. Downey taught production of a coaxial double loop antenna by selective etching of a double metal cladded circuit board. These techniques involve creating a conductive antenna structure on a substantially flat surface through processes involving patterned etching. Techniques for producing antennas by selective etching suffer from excessive material waste, pollution control difficulties and limited design flexibility.
Another form of antenna often employed with wireless communication devices is the so-called “whip” antenna. These antennas normally comprise straight or helical coil wire structures, or combinations thereof, and are often moveable between extended and retracted positions. A typical example of such antenna design is taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,995,050 to Moller, et al. Moller et al. teaches production of so-called extendable “whip” antennas combining wound helical and straight portions of wire. U.S. Pat. No. 6,081,236 to Aoki taught using a coaxial cable as a radiation element in conjunction with a helical antenna. U.S. Pat. No. 6,052,090 to Simmons, et al. teaches a combination of helical and straight radiating elements for multi-band use. The wire forming techniques proposed in these disclosures are, of course, limited in design flexibility. In many cases, the antenna and especially the helical coil must be encapsulated with insulating material for dimensional and structural integrity as well as aesthetic considerations. This encapsulation is often done by insert injection molding with a thermoplastic encapsulant. Care must be taken to ensure that the high injection pressures and speeds inherent in injection molding do not cause undesirable movement and dimensional changes of the wire coil. This problem was addressed by Bumsted in U.S. Pat. No. 5,648,788. However, the specialized tooling taught by Bumsted would appear to further reduce design flexibility and likely increase costs.
Other problems are associated with the “whip” antennas. They are subject to damage, especially when extended, and can cause inadvertent personal injury. The fact that they must be retractable increases mechanical wear and limits possible size reductions for the device. U.S. Pat. No. 6,075,489 to Sullivan addresses this latter problem by teaching a telescoping “whip” antenna combining a helix mounted on slideable components to enable telescopic extension. This design allows a longer antenna but increases complexity and cost and increases possibility of damage when extended.
As size continues to be an issue, increasing attention is devoted toward conformal antennas. Conformal antennas generally follow the shape of the surface on which they are supported and generally exhibit a low profile. There are a number of different types of conformal antennas, including microstrip, stripline, and three-dimensional designs. The low-profile resonant microstrip antenna radiators generally comprise a conductive radiator surface positioned above a more extensive conductive ground plane. The conductive surfaces are normally substantially opposing and spaced apart from one another. The substantially planar conductive surfaces can be produced by well-known techniques such as conductive coating, sheet metal forming or photo-etching of doubly clad dielectric sheet.
A factor to consider in design and construction of high efficiency microstrip antennas is the nature of the separating dielectric material. U.S. Pat. No. 5,355,142 to Marshall, et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,444,453 to Lalezari teach using air as the dielectric. This approach tends to increase the complexity of manufacture and precautions must be made to ensure and maintain proper spacing between radiator and ground plane.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,157,344 to Bateman, et al. teaches manufacture of flat antenna structures using well-known photomasking and etching techniques of copper cladded dielectric substrates.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,049,314 to Munson, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,835,541 to Johnson, et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 6,184,833 to Tran all teach manufacture of a microstrip antennas produced by cutting and forming an initially planar copper sheet into the form of a “U”. Cutting and forming of planar metal sheets offers limited design options. In addition, provision must be made to provide a dielectric supporting structure between the two arms of the “U” since the sheet metal would likely not maintain required planar spacing without such support.
One notes that most of the technologies for antenna production involve the placement and combining of conductive material patterns with either a supportive or protective dielectric substrate. Antenna production often involves the production of well-defined patterns, strips or traces of conductive material held in position by a dielectric material.
As technology evolves, consumers have demanded a greater number of features incorporated in a specific device. These requirements tend to increase the size of the device. Simultaneously, there has been the need to make these portable devices smaller and lighter to maximize convenience. These conflicting requirements extend to the antenna, and attempts have been made to advance the antenna design toward three-dimensional structures to maximize performance and minimize size.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,914,690 to Lehtola et al. teaches an internal conformal antenna of relatively simple, three dimensional construction for a wireless portable communication device. The antenna comprises an assembly of multiple pieces. A radiator plate is positioned between a cover structure and a support frame positioned over and connected to an electrically conductive earth plane. The radiator plate is formed from a flexible thin metal plate. The multiple pieces required for accurate positioning of the radiator plate relative to the earth plane increases the manufacturing cost of the Lehtola et al. structures.
Unfortunately, more complicated three-dimensional metal-based patterns often required for antenna manufacture can be difficult or impossible to produce using conventional mechanical wire winding, sheet forming or photoetching techniques. Photoetching requires a conforming mask to define the circuitry. U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,391 to Bellus, et al. illustrates the complications associated with prior art photoetch methods of forming three-dimensional metallic patterns on a dielectric substrate. Bellus, et al. teaches manufacture of a three-dimensional tapered notch antenna array formed on an injected molded thermoplastic grid. Multiple operations, specialized masking and other complications are involved in production of the photoetched metallic patterns. In addition, the metallic patterns produced were still restricted to a three dimensional structure made up of essentially flat dielectric panels.
Mettler et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,116 taught the use of thermoforming a plastic sheet coated with a vacuum formable ink into a mask having the surface contour of a three dimensional article. A computer controlled laser is used to remove ink in a desired patterned design. The mask was then drawn tightly to a resist coated workpiece. Using known methods of photo and metal deposition processing, a part having patterned three-dimensional structure is produced. The Mettler, et al. patent also discussed the limitations of using a photomask on a three dimensional substrate by using the example of a mushroom. A photomask cannot easily conform to the stem of the mushroom while still permitting the mask to be installed or removed over the cap of the mushroom. Thus, a significant limitation on design flexibility exists with conventional photoetching techniques for production of three dimensional antenna structures.
A number of patents envision antenna structures comprising metal-based materials deposited into trenches or channels formed in a dielectric support. For example, Crothall in U.S. Pat. No. 5,911,454 teaches a method of forming a strip of conductive material by depositing a conductive material into a channel formed by two raised portions extending upward from a surface of an insulating material. The conductive material was deposited to overlay portions of the raised material. The conductive material overlaying the raised portions was then removed to result in a sharply defined conductive strip. The process taught by Crothall is clearly limited in its design flexibility by the material removal requirement. Ploussios, U.S. Pat. No. 4,862,184 teaches deposition of metal into a helical channel support. The selective deposition process was described only to the extent that it was achieved by known plating techniques. U.S. Pat. No. 4,996,391 to Schmidt and U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,600 to Heerman both teach injection molded substrates upon which a circuit is applied. In both patents, the pattern of the eventual circuitry is molded in the form of trenches or depressions below a major, substantially planar surface. In this way, plating resist lacquer applied by roller coating will coat only those surface areas of the major, substantially planar surface, and subsequent chemical metal deposition occurs only in the trenches remaining uncoated by the plating resist. This technique avoids the complications of photoetching, but is still design limited by the requirement of applying the plating resist. Application of the plating resist becomes increasingly difficult as the contours of the major surface become more complicated. In addition, chemical metal deposition is relatively slow in building thickness and the chemistry used is relatively expensive.
As wireless communication devices continue to evolve, the demands on the design, size and manufacturability of the required antennas will become increasingly challenging. There is clearly a need for improved materials, processes and manufacturing techniques to produce the antennas of the future.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,052,889 to Yu, et al. teaches a method for preparing a radio frequency antenna having a plurality of radiating elements. The three dimensional assembly includes multiple steps including electroless metal deposition on components to a metal thickness of at least 0.0015 inch. Electroless metal deposition involves relatively slow deposition rates and thus extended processing times are required to deposit such thickness. The Yu, et al. teaching also involves photoetching to selectively remove metal, further complicating the methods taught.
Elliott, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,147,660 addresses the design limitations intrinsic in helical wire-winding processing and teaches use of a molded helical antenna. Techniques taught to produce the molded antennas included zinc die casting, metal injection molding, or molding of a material such as ABS, which can be plated by conventional technology. Elliot taught non-circular or non-symmetrical helical antennas, difficult to manufacture by conventional wire winding methods. The manufacturing methods proposed would be difficult and costly.
A number of recent approaches to production of improved antennas involve a technology generally described as “plating on plastics”. The “plating on plastics” technology is intended to deposit an adherent coating of a metal or metal-based material onto the surface of a plastic substrate. Conventional “plating on plastics” typically envisions the deposition of an initial metal coating using “electroless” plating followed by an optional deposition of additional metal using electrodeposition. Electroless plating of a plastics involves chemically coating a nonconductive surface such as a plastic with a metallic film. Unlike conventional electroplating, electroless plating does not require the use of electricity to deposit the metal. Instead, a series of chemical steps involving etchants and catalysts prepare the non-conductive plastic substrate to accept a metal layer deposited by chemical reduction of metal from solution. The process often involves depositing a thin layer of highly conductive copper followed by a nickel topcoat, which protects the copper sublayer from oxidation and corrosion. The thickness of the nickel topcoat can be adjusted depending on the abrasion and corrosion requirements of the final product. Because electroless plating is an immersion process, uniform coatings can be applied to almost any configuration regardless of size or complexity. Electroless plating also provides a conductive, essentially pure metal surface. Electrolessly plated parts can be subsequently electroplated if required.
Unfortunately, the “plating on plastics” process comprises many steps involving expensive and harsh chemicals. This increases costs dramatically and involves environmental difficulties. The process can be sensitive to processing variables used to fabricate the plastic substrate, limiting applications to carefully molded parts and designs. It may be difficult to properly mold conventional plateable plastics using the rapid injection rates often required for the thin walls of electronic components. The rapid injection rates can cause poor surface distribution of etchable species, resulting in poor surface roughening and subsequent inferior bonding of the chemically deposited metal. Finally, the rates at which metals can be chemically deposited are relatively slow, typically about one micrometer per hour. The conventional technology for metal plating on plastic (etching, chemical reduction, optional electroplating) has been extensively documented and discussed in the public and commercial literature. See, for example, Saubestre, Transactions of the Institute of Metal Finishing, 1969, Vol. 47, or Arcilesi et al., Products Finishing, March 1984.
Despite the difficulties, a number of attempts have been made to utilize the “plating on plastics” technology for the production of antennas. Most antenna applications involve selective placement of a metal conductor in relation to an insulating material. Selective metallization using the “plating on plastics” technology can be achieved in a number of ways. A first method is to coat the entire insulating substrate with metal and then selectively remove metal using photoetching techniques that have been used for many years in the production of printed circuits. However, these techniques are very limited in design flexibility, as discussed previously. A second method is to apply a plating stopoff coating prior to chemically depositing the metal. The stopoff is intended to prevent metal deposition onto the coated surfaces. This approach was incorporated into the teachings of Schmidt, U.S. Pat. No. 4,996,391, and Heerman, U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,600 referenced above. This approach is design limited by the need for the stopoff coating. Another more recent approach is to incorporate a plating catalyst into a resin and to combine the “catalyzed resin with an “uncatalyzed” resin in a two shot molding operation. Only the surfaces formed by the “catalyzed” resin will stimulate the chemical reaction reducing metal, and thus conceptually only those surfaces will be metallized. This approach is taught, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,137,452 to Sullivan.
Selective metallizing using either stopoff lacquer of catalyzed resin approaches can be difficult, especially on complex parts, since the electroless plating may tend to coat any exposed surface unless the overall process is carefully controlled. Poor line definition, “skip plating” and complete part coverage due to bath instabilities often occurs. Despite much effort to develop consistent and reliable performance through material and process development, these problems still remain.
There is a clear need for improved technology to enable facile production of antennas comprising electroplated plastic structures.
A number of attempts have been made to simplify the electroplating of plastics. If successful such efforts could result in significant opportunities as well as cost reductions for electroplated plastics used for antennas. In addition expanded possibilities such as the continuous manufacture of low-cost antennas could be envisioned. Some simplification attempts involve special chemical techniques, other than conventional electroless metal deposition, to produce an electrically conductive film on the surface. Typical examples of the approach are taught by U.S. Pat. No. 3,523,875 to Minklei, U.S. Pat. No. 3,682,786 to Brown et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 3,619,382 to Lupinski. The electrically conductive surface film produced was intended to be electroplated. Multiple performance problems thwarted these attempts.
Other approaches contemplate making the plastic surface itself conductive enough to allow it to be electroplated directly thereby avoiding the “electroless plating” processes. Polymers can be made electrically conductive through incorporation of conductive fillers. Alternatively, intrinsically conductive polymers are known in the art.
Efforts have been made to advance systems contemplating metal electrodeposition directly onto the surface of electrically conductive polymers made conductive through incorporating conductive fillers. When considering polymers rendered electrically conductive by loading with electrically conductive fillers, it may be important to distinguish between “microscopic resistivity” and “bulk” or macroscopic resistivity”. “Microscopic resistivity” refers to a characteristic of a polymer/filler mix considered at a relatively small linear dimension of for example 1 micrometer or less. “Bulk” or “macroscopic resistivity” refers to a characteristic determined over larger linear dimensions. To illustrate the difference between “microscopic” and “bulk, macroscopic” resistivities, one can consider a polymer loaded with conductive fibers at a fiber loading of 10 weight percent. Such a material might show a low “bulk, macroscopic” resistivity when the measurement is made over a relatively large distance. However, because of fiber separation (holes) such a composite might not exhibit consistent “microscopic” resistivity. When producing an electrically conductive polymer intended to be electroplated, one should consider “microscopic resistivity” in order to achieve uniform, “hole-free” deposit coverage. Thus, it may be advantageous to consider conductive fillers comprising those that are relatively small, but with loadings sufficient to supply the required conductive contacting. Such fillers include metal powders and flake, metal coated mica or spheres, conductive carbon black and the like.
Efforts to produce electrically conductive polymers suitable for direct electroplating have encountered a number of obstacles. The first is the combination of fabrication difficulty and material property deterioration brought about by the heavy filler loadings often required. A second is the high cost of many conductive fillers employed such as silver flake.
Another obstacle involved in the electroplating of electrically conductive polymers is a consideration of adhesion between the electrodeposited metal and polymeric substrate (metal/polymer adhesion). In some cases such as electroforming, where the electrodeposited metal is eventually removed from the substrate, metal/polymer adhesion may actually be detrimental. However, in most cases sufficient adhesion is required to prevent metal/polymer separation during extended environmental and use cycles.
A number of methods to enhance adhesion have been employed. For example, etching of the surface prior to plating can be considered. Etching can be achieved by immersion in vigorous solutions such as chromic/sulfuric acid. Alternatively, or in addition, an etchable species can be incorporated into the conductive polymeric compound. The etchable species at exposed surfaces is removed by immersion in an etchant prior to electroplating. Oxidizing surface treatments can also be considered to improve metal/plastic adhesion. These include processes such as flame or plasma treatments or immersion in oxidizing acids.
In the case of conductive polymers containing finely divided metal, one can propose achieving direct metal-to-metal adhesion between the electrodeposit and the filler. However, here the metal particles are generally encapsulated by the resin binder, often resulting in a resin rich “skin”. To overcome this effect, one could propose methods to remove the “skin”, exposing active metal filler to bond to subsequently electrodeposited metal.
Another approach to impart adhesion between conductive resin substrates and electrodeposits is incorporation of an “adhesion promoter” at the surface of the electrically conductive resin substrate. This approach was taught by Chien et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,278,510 where maleic anhydride modified propylene polymers were taught as an adhesion promoter. Luch, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,865,699 taught that certain sulfur bearing chemicals could function to improve adhesion of initially electrodeposited Group VIII metals.
An additional major obstacle confronting development of electrically conductive polymeric resin compositions capable of being directly electroplated is the initial “bridge” of electrodeposit on the surface of the electrically conductive resin. In electrodeposition, the substrate to be plated is often made cathodic through a pressure contact to a metal rack tip, itself under cathodic potential. However, if the contact resistance is excessive or the substrate is insufficiently conductive, the electrodeposit current favors the rack tip to the point where the electrodeposit will have difficulty bridging to the substrate.
Moreover, a further problem is encountered even if specialized racking successfully achieves electrodeposit bridging to the substrate. Many of the electrically conductive polymeric resins have resistivities far higher than those of typical metal substrates. The polymeric substrate can be relatively limited in the amount of electrodeposition current which it alone can convey. Thus, in these cases the conductive polymeric substrate may not cover almost instantly with electrodeposit as is typical with metallic substrates. Rather the electrodeposit coverage occurs by lateral growth over the surface. Except for the most heavily loaded and highly conductive polymer substrates, a significant portion of the electrodeposition current, including that associated with the lateral electrodeposit growth, must pass through the previously electrodeposited metal. In a fashion similar to the bridging problem discussed above, the electrodeposition current favors the electrodeposited metal and the lateral growth can be extremely slow and erratic. This restricts the size and “growth length” of the substrate conductive pattern which can reasonably be employed, increases plating costs, and can also result in large non-uniformities in electrodeposit integrity and thickness over the pattern.
Lateral electrodeposit coverage rate issues likely can be characterized by a continuum, being dependent on many factors such as the nature of the initially electrodeposited metal, electroplating bath chemistry and operational parameters, the polymeric binder, resistivity, and the thickness of the conductive polymeric substrate. In many cases, thin electrodeposited metal patterns having extended length are desired. Often, these patterns are to be electroplated on electrically conductive polymeric substrates having limited current carrying capacity. For example, a pattern formed using a typical electrically conductive coating or ink may have a dry thickness less than 25 micrometers, and often less than about 10 micrometers. In these cases, lateral electrodeposit coverage rates may be of concern even for highly conductive inks.
In addition to thickness, an additional factor affecting substrate current carrying capacity is resistivity. As an additional rule of thumb, the instant inventor estimates that coverage rate problems would demand attention if the resistivity of the conductive polymeric substrate rose above 0.001 ohm-cm regardless of thickness.
Beset with the problems of achieving adhesion and satisfactory electrodeposit coverage rates, investigators have attempted to produce directly electroplateable polymers by heavily loading polymers with relatively small metal containing fillers to create electrically conductive polymers. Such heavy loadings are sufficient to reduce both microscopic and macroscopic resistivity to a level where the coverage rate phenomenon may be manageable. However, attempts to make an acceptable directly electroplateable resin using the relatively small metal containing fillers alone encounter a number of barriers. First, the fine metal containing fillers are relatively expensive. The loadings required to achieve the particle-to-particle proximity for acceptable conductivity increases the cost of the polymer/filler blend dramatically. The metal containing fillers are accompanied by further problems. They tend to cause deterioration of the mechanical properties and processing characteristics of many resins. This significantly limits options in resin selection. All polymer processing is best achieved by formulating resins with processing characteristics specifically tailored to the specific process (injection molding, extrusion, blow molding, printing etc.). A required heavy loading of metal filler severely restricts ability to manipulate processing properties in this way. A further problem is that metal fillers can be abrasive to processing machinery and may require specialized screws, barrels, and the like. Finally, despite being electrically conductive, a simple metal-filled polymer still offers no mechanism to produce adhesion of an electrodeposit since the metal particles are generally encapsulated by the resin binder, often resulting in a resin-rich “skin”. For the above reasons, fine metal particle containing plastics have not been widely used as substrates for discrete self supporting directly electroplateable articles. Rather, they have found applications in production of conductive adhesives, pastes, and paints.
The least expensive (and least conductive) of the readily available conductive fillers for plastics are carbon blacks. Attempts have been made to produce electrically conductive polymers based on carbon black loading intended to be subsequently electroplated. Examples of this approach are the teachings of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,038,042, 3,865,699, and 4,278,510 to Adelman, Luch, and Chien et al. respectively.
Adelman taught incorporation of conductive carbon black into a polymeric matrix to achieve electrical conductivity required for electroplating. The substrate was pre-etched in chromic/sulfuric acid to achieve adhesion of the subsequently electroplated metal. However, the rates of electrodeposit coverage reported by Adelman may be insufficient for many applications.
Luch in U.S. Pat. No. 3,865,699 and Chien et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,278,510 also chose carbon black as a filler to provide an electrically conductive surface for the polymeric compounds to be electroplated. The Luch U.S. Pat. No. 3,865,699 and the Chien U.S. Pat. No. 4,278,510 are hereby incorporated in their entirety by this reference. However, these inventors further taught inclusion of materials to increase the rate of metal coverage or the rate of metal deposition on the polymer. These materials can be described herein as “electrodeposit growth rate accelerators” or “electrodeposit coverage rate accelerators”. An electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator is a material functioning to increase the electrodeposition coverage rate over the surface of an electrically conductive polymer independent of any incidental affect it may have on the conductivity of an electrically conductive polymer. In the embodiments, examples and teachings of U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,865,699 and 4,278,510, it was shown that certain sulfur bearing materials, including elemental sulfur, can function as electrodeposit coverage or growth rate accelerators to overcome problems in achieving electrodeposit coverage of electrically conductive polymeric surfaces having relatively high resistivity or thin electrically conductive polymeric substrates having limited current carrying capacity.
In addition to elemental sulfur, sulfur in the form of sulfur donors such as sulfur chloride, 2-mercapto-benzothiazole, N-cyclohexyle-2-benzothiaozole sulfonomide, dibutyl xanthogen disulfide, and tetramethyl thiuram disulfide or combinations of these and sulfur were identified. Those skilled in the art will recognize that these sulfur donors are the materials which have been used or have been proposed for use as vulcanizing agents or accelerators. Since the polymer-based compositions taught by Luch and Chien et al. could be electroplated directly they could be accurately defined as directly electroplateable resins (DER). These DER materials can be generally described as electrically conductive polymers characterized by having an electrically conductive surface with the inclusion of an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator. In the following, the acronym “DER” will be used to designate a directly electroplateable resin as defined in this specification.
Specifically for the present invention, directly electroplateable resins, (DER), are characterized by the following features:                (a) presence of an electrically conductive polymer characterized by having an electrically conductive surface;        (b) presence of an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator;        (c) presence of the electrically conductive polymer characterized by having an electrically conductive surface and the electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator in the directly electroplateable composition in cooperative amounts appropriate to allow direct coverage of the composition with an electrodeposited metal or metal-based alloy.        
In his patents, Luch specifically identified elastomers such as natural rubber, polychloroprene, butyl rubber, chlorinated butyl rubber, polybutadiene rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber etc. as suitable for the matrix polymer of a directly electroplateable resin. Other polymers identified by Luch as useful included polyvinyls, polyolefins, polystyrenes, polyamides, polyesters and polyurethanes.
In his patents, Luch identified carbon black as a means to render a polymer and its surface electrically conductive. As is known in the art, other conductive fillers can be used to impart conductivity to a polymer. These include metallic flakes or powders such as those comprising nickel or silver. Other fillers such as metal coated minerals may also suffice. Furthermore, one might expect that compositions comprising intrinsically conductive polymers may be suitable.
Regarding electrodeposit coverage rate accelerators, both Luch and Chien et al. in the above discussed U.S. patents demonstrated that sulfur and other sulfur bearing materials such as sulfur donors and vulcanization accelerators function as electrodeposit coverage rate accelerators when using an initial Group VIII “strike” layer. Thus, an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator need not necessarily be electrically conductive, but may be a material that is normally characterized as a non-conductor. The coverage rate accelerator need not appreciably affect the conductivity of the polymeric substrate. As an aid in understanding the function of an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator the following is offered:                a. A specific conductive polymeric structure is identified as having insufficient current carry capacity to be directly electroplated in a practical manner.        b. A material is added to the conductive polymeric material forming said structure. Said material addition may have insignificant affect on the current carrying capacity of the structure (i.e. it does not appreciably reduce resistivity or increase thickness).        c. Nevertheless, inclusion of said material greatly increases the speed at which an electrodeposited metal laterally covers the electrically conductive surface.It is contemplated that a coverage rate accelerator may be present as an additive, as a species absorbed on a filler surface, or even as a functional group attached to the polymer chain.        
A hypothetical example might be an extended trace of conductive ink having a dry thickness of 1 micrometer. Such inks typically include a conductive filler such as silver, nickel, copper, conductive carbon etc. The limited thickness of the ink reduces the current carrying capacity of this trace thus preventing direct electroplating in a practical manner. However, inclusion of an appropriate quantity of a coverage rate accelerator may allow the conductive trace to be directly electroplated in a practical manner.
One might expect that other Group 6A elements, such as oxygen, selenium and tellurium, could function in a way similar to sulfur. In addition, other combinations of electrodeposited metals, such as copper, and appropriate coverage rate accelerators may be identified. It is important to recognize that such an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator is extremely important in order to achieve direct electrodeposition in a practical way onto polymeric substrates having low conductivity or very thin electrically conductive polymeric substrates having restricted current carrying ability.
It has also been found that the inclusion of an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator promotes electrodeposit bridging from a discrete cathodic metal contact to a DER surface. This greatly reduces the bridging problems described above.
As pointed out above in this specification, attempts to dramatically simplify the process of electroplating on plastics have met with commercial difficulties. Nevertheless, the current inventor has persisted in personal efforts to overcome certain performance deficiencies associated with the initial DER technology. Along with these efforts has come a recognition of unique and eminently suitable applications employing electrically conductive polymers and specifically the DER technology especially for those applications related to antenna manufacture.
A first recognition, is that the “microscopic” material resistivity generally is not reduced below about 1 ohm-cm. by using conductive carbon black alone. This is several orders of magnitude larger than typical metal resistivities. Other well known finely divided conductive fillers (such as metal flake or powder, metal coated minerals, graphite, or other forms of conductive carbon) can be considered in DER applications requiring lower “microscopic” resistivity. In these cases the more highly conductive fillers can be considered to augment or even replace the conductive carbon black.
Moreover, the “bulk, macroscopic” resistivity of conductive carbon black filled polymers can be further reduced by augmenting the carbon black filler with additional highly conductive, high aspect ratio fillers such as metal containing fibers. This can be an important consideration in the success of certain applications. Furthermore, one should realize that incorporation of non-conductive fillers may increase the “bulk, macroscopic” resistivity of conductive polymers loaded with finely divided conductive fillers without significantly altering the “microscopic resistivity” of the conductive polymer. This is an important recognition regarding DER's in that electrodeposit coverage speed depends not only on the presence of an electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator but also on the “microscopic resistivity” and less so on the “macroscopic resistivity” of the DER formulation. Thus, large additional loadings of functional non-conductive fillers can be tolerated in DER formulations without undue sacrifice in electrodeposit coverage rates or adhesion. These additional non-conductive loadings do not greatly affect the “microscopic resistivity” associated with the polymer/conductive filler/electrodeposit coverage rate accelerator “matrix” since the non-conductive filler is essentially encapsulated by “matrix” material. Conventional “electroless” plating technology does not permit this compositional flexibility.
Yet another recognition regarding the DER technology is its ability to employ polymer resins generally chosen in recognition of the fabrication process envisioned and the intended end use requirements. Thus DER's can be produced in material forms that are often suitable for the manufacture of antennas. In order to provide clarity, examples of some such fabrication processes are presented immediately below in subparagraphs 1 through 7.                (1) Should it be desired to electroplate an ink, paint, coating, or paste which may be printed or formed on a substrate, a soluble resin having excellent film forming characteristics can be chosen to fabricate a DER ink (paint, coating, paste etc.).        (2) Very thin DER traces often associated with antenna structure can be printed and then electroplated due to the inclusion of a growth rate accelerator.        (3) DER inks have been formulated such that very fine line definition can be achieved with standard printing processes such as flexographic printing and rotary screen printing.        (4) Should it be desired to electroplate an antenna on a fabric, a DER ink can be used to coat all or a portion of the fabric intended to be electroplated. Furthermore, since DER's can be fabricated out of the thermoplastic materials commonly used to create fabrics, the fabric itself could completely or partially comprise a DER. This would obviously eliminate the need to coat the fabric.        (5) Should one desire to electroplate a thermoformed antenna, DER's would represent an eminently suitable material choice. DER's can be easily formulated using olefinic materials which are often a preferred material for the thermoforming process. Furthermore, DER's can be easily and inexpensively extruded into the sheet like structure necessary for the thermoforming process.        (6) Should one desire to electroplate an extruded antenna, for example a sheet or film, DER's can be formulated to possess the necessary melt strength advantageous for the extrusion process.        (7) Should one desire to electroplate a blow molded antenna, DER's can fabricated with required melt strength etc. necessary for these operations.        (8) Should one desire to electroplate an injection molded antenna having thin walls, broad surface areas etc. a DER composition comprising a high flow polymer can be chosen.        (9) One will recognize that DER's are eminently suitable for specialized injection molding techniques such as multi-shot molding, dual shot molding, co-injection molding, insert molding etc.        (10) Should one desire to vary adhesion between an electrodeposited DER structure supported by a substrate the DER material can be formulated to supply the required adhesive characteristics to the substrate.        
All polymer fabrication processes require specific resin processing characteristics for success. The ability to “custom formulate” DER's to comply with these changing processing and end use requirements while still allowing facile, quality electroplating is a significant factor in the antenna manufacture teachings of the current invention. Conventional plastic electroplating technology does not permit great flexibility to “custom formulate”.
Another important recognition regarding the suitability of DER's for antenna manufacturing is the simplicity of the electroplating process. Unlike many conventional electroplated plastics, DER's do not require a significant number of process steps during the manufacturing process. This allows for simplified manufacturing and improved process control. It also reduces the risk of cross contamination such as solution dragout from one process bath being transported to another process bath. The simplified manufacturing process will also result in reduced manufacturing costs. As will be shown in the subsequent embodiments, this simplified manufacturing also allows unique electrical joining techniques between antennas and electrical devices.
Another important recognition regarding the suitability of DER's for antenna production, is the wide variety of metals and alloys capable of being electrodeposited. Deposits may be chosen for specific attributes. An example is copper for conductivity. Another example would be iron for its magnetic, cost or environmental characteristics.
Yet another recognition of the benefit of DER's for antenna manufacturing is the ability they offer to selectively electroplate an article or structure. Antennas often consist of metal patterns selectively positioned in conjunction with insulating materials. Such selective positioning of metals is often expensive and difficult. However, the attributes of the DER technology make the technology eminently suitable for the production of such selectively positioned metal structures. As will be shown in later embodiments, selective electroplating of a DER/insulating antenna structure can be simply and inexpensively achieved.
Yet another recognition of the benefit of DER's for antenna manufacturing is the ability they offer to continuously electroplate an article or structure. As will be shown in later embodiments, it is often desired to continuously electroplate articles to form electroplated plastic antennas. Examples include antennas for RFID tags and contactless smart cards. DER's are eminently suitable for such continuous electroplating. Furthermore, DER's allow for the selective electroplating of antennas in a continuous manner.
Yet another recognition of the benefit of DER's for antenna manufacturing is their ability to withstand the pre-treatments often required to prepare other materials for electroplating. For example, were a DER to be combined with another electroplateable material, the DER material would be resistant to many of the pre-treatments which may be necessary to electroplate the additional electroplateable material.
Yet another recognition of the benefit of DER's for antenna manufacturing is that the desired plated structure often requires the plating of long and/or broad surface areas. As discussed previously, the coverage rate accelerators included in DER formulations allow for such extended surfaces to be covered in a relatively rapid manner.
These and other attributes of DER's in the production of antennas will become clear through the following remaining specification, accompanying figures and claims.
In order to eliminate ambiguity in terminology of the present specification and claims, the following definitions are supplied.
“Polymers” (also referred to as plastics or resins) include any of the group of synthetic or natural organic materials that may be shaped when soft and then hardened. This includes thermoplastics and three-dimensional curing materials such as epoxies and thermosets. In addition, certain silicon based materials such as silicones can be considered as polymers or resins. Polymers also include any coating, ink, or paint fabricated using a polymer binder or film forming material.
“Alloy” refers to a substance composed of two or more intimately mixed materials.
“Metal-based” refers to a material or structure having at least one metallic property and comprising one or more components at least one of which is a metal or metal-containing alloy.
“Group VIII metal-based” refers to a substance containing by weight 50% to 100% metal from Group VIII of the Periodic Table of Elements.